Middle/dark Ages

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1890713' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:20 PM']He's making a reference to Back to the Future, insinuating that you must have gone back in time to the Dark Ages in order to say that you "guarantee" a lot of people were, in general, uneducated back then.[/quote]


oh lol. Alright.

Literacy in enlightened Athens was like 15% as I recall. It's not blaming the Church to make the judgement that women in the dark ages would be pretty deprived of education. That doesn't mean the Church was to blame. Widespread education is a luxury of the industrial age.

[KnightofChrist]

Also, the notion that humanities education has increased with time, due to technology, is an assumption not based in reality. Since at least 1950 IQ levels have actually decreased with the raise of population and technology.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1890724' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:24 PM']I understand that to a degree. The Church gets a lot of unfair blame for the dark ages. But it seems like you don't try to refute the simplistic and false idea that the Church somehow dragged the enlightened classical world to squalor or some non sense like that, but rather try to vindicate the times.

Like with science. Scientific progres was pretty stagnant during the dark ages as far as I know. It's fair to refute the false prejudices about the Church's role in the stagnation. But to try and assert that the scientific method was formed during the middle ages or that there was not a serious decline in scientific knowledge is just not historical. That's just an example where I have some knowledge.[/quote]

The development or 'evolution' of scientific method was not only developed in the early middle ages, but long before that time. Scientific method developed from the time of the ancient Egyptians, Aristotle, Ibn al-Haytham, Al-Biruni, Avicenna, Robert Grosseteste, to Roger Bacon.

Edited June 15, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1890764' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:46 PM']The development or 'evolution' of scientific method was not only developed in the early middle ages, but long before that time. Scientific method developed from the time of the ancient Egyptians, Aristotle, Ibn al-Haytham, Al-Biruni, Avicenna, Robert Grosseteste, to Roger Bacon.[/quote]


It's Robert Bacon. The scientific method was not developed by the early middle ages. I don't know what to say there besides you are just wrong. I have given you data pointing out some very basic reasons that is an incorrectg claim, you did not really respond to them. If you want to respond to them or have a substantive discussion about it I'm happy too but if you just want to insist again and again I'm not interested.

[kafka]

In general one good thing about the Middle Ages is there was a real sense of transcendence in everyday life. In spite of ignorance, lack of education, naivete, superstition, etc. there seemed to be this native sense of God and morals and the afterlife which significantly pervaded many aspects of life such as culture, law, the arts, customs, etc. in Europe as well as the Arab nations. Not to say everyone lived up to this ideal 'sense,' however this sort of religious mileau did have a profound effect on the times.

Would anyone agree with this general statement?

[Hassan]

[quote name='kafka' post='1890796' date='Jun 14 2009, 10:03 PM']In general one good thing about the Middle Ages is there was a real sense of transcendence in everyday life. In spite of ignorance, lack of education, naivete, superstition, etc. there seemed to be this native sense of God and morals and the afterlife which significantly pervaded many aspects of life such as culture, law, the arts, customs, etc. in Europe as well as the Arab nations. Not to say everyone lived up to this ideal 'sense,' however this sort of religious mileau did have a profound effect on the times.

Would anyone agree with this general statement?[/quote]


sure

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1890791' date='Jun 14 2009, 10:01 PM']It's Robert Bacon. The scientific method was not developed by the early middle ages. I don't know what to say there besides you are just wrong. I have given you data pointing out some very basic reasons that is an incorrectg claim, you did not really respond to them. If you want to respond to them or have a substantive discussion about it I'm happy too but if you just want to insist again and again I'm not interested.[/quote]

The Stanford Encyclopedia says Roger Bacon. No, the scientific method was not fully developed by the early middle ages. No one has claimed such a thing, what has been said that it was being developed. And that is very true. Bacon was influenced by Grosseteste and others.

"Bacon joined the Franciscan Order about 1256/7, whether at Oxford or Paris is not known. At any rate, he was probably in Paris in the late 1250s and was definitely there in the early 1260s. He had been attracted to the Order by the philosophical, theological and scientific example of Grosseteste, Adam Marsh and other English Franciscans. He had personally known Adam Marsh at Oxford and possibly Grosseteste at Lincoln ca.1247/8-51."

Source: [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/roger-bacon/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/roger-bacon/[/url]

Edited June 15, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[kafka]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1890813' date='Jun 14 2009, 10:11 PM']sure[/quote]
good. I think this is important.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1889760' date='Jun 13 2009, 03:56 PM']My professor for History of the Reformation told us that the idea of the "Dark Ages" was actually developed by Protestant Englishmen around the time of the English Reformation as a way of casting aspersion on the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church actually had great advances and was deeply influential in the culture during those years. It was a form of propaganda because of the long and bitter fight between Catholics and Protestants in England. Protestants needed to find a way to demonize Catholics, and casting a dark light on history was one way it was done.

The history of Spain underwent a similar propagandization, termed the "black legend."[/quote]
True.

Much of pop-history regarding the Church in the medieval period, as well as regarding Spain, the inquisition, etc. stems from anti-Catholic propaganda when protestant England was at war with Catholic Spain.
The medieval period was cast entirely as a dark period, and Church leaders all as monsters of brutality and evil.

Most serious medieval scholars today do not buy this view.

The so-called Middle Ages were not the near-flawless utopia some Catholics try to make them to be (there has never been a utopia sense the fall of man), but neither were they the horrible age of darkness and repression pop-history regards them as. People have a tendency to either unduly romanticize or demonize the past.

Certainly, from a Catholic standpoint, Christendom reached its highest earthly grandeur during the period known as the high middle ages. (A number of Catholic historians call the 13th century AD "the greatest of centuries.")
Christendom was united and strong, and Western society in general focused on the Catholic/Christian Faith and salvation as the ultimate reason fro existence. This is shown in physical form by the magnificent Gothic cathedrals, in which people from all levels of society contributed to make these monuments to the glory of God. These were hardly products of darkness and ignorance, but marvels of engineering and artistic genius.

There was actually quite a lot scientific and technological advancement over the course of the middle ages, following a steep decline during the fall of the Roman Empire. Much of the preservation and advancement of learning during this time came from Catholic monks. (You might want to check out the book [url="http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245033778&sr=1-2"][i]The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success[/i], by Rodney Stark[/url].)

While obviously not meeting 21st-century feminist standards (and is that really a bad thing?), the medieval period was also not the horrible period of oppression of women it was made out to be, but in fact a number of medieval women held positions of power and prestige in both religious and secular society (St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bridget of Sweden, Queen Isabel of Spain, etc.)

One should also keep in mind that when talking about the "middle ages," you're referring to an approximately thousand-year stretch of history, which had its highs and lows. The fifth century was a very different era then the fifteenth.
And these years contained saints and sinners just like any other period of history.

Whatever else might be said about the middle ages, it's hard to say that overall Catholics were less fervent or knowledgeable about the Faith than they are now. When most self-proclaimed "Catholics" today are either ignorant of or reject basic Christian Catholic doctrine, it's hard to argue we're living in any golden age of Faith.

It's also hypocritical to complain about the middle ages as being exceptionally brutal or violent, as more violence, wars and atrocities have occurred in the recent "enlightened" 20th century than in any other period of history.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Socrates

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1890852' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:40 PM']Whatever else might be said about the middle ages, it's hard to say that overall Catholics were less fervent or knowledgeable about the Faith than they are now. When most self-proclaimed "Catholics" today are either ignorant of or reject basic Christian Catholic doctrine, it's hard to argue we're living in any golden age of Faith.

It's also hypocritical to complain about the middle ages as being exceptionally brutal or violent, as more violence, wars and atrocities have occurred in the recent "enlightened" 20th century than in any other period of history.[/quote]

exactly. it makes me laugh when i hear people speak as if they know how things were back then. The truth is, none of us really know, we weren't there. And written history has proven time and time again to be rather biased against the Church...

As for those who seem to be able to read the minds of those who lived in that time, i think it is ridiculous to assume most didn't know their Faith that well... how on earth do you know this??? and to assume in particular, that females were most ignorant of the Faith, well what do you have to say about St. Catherine of Sienna, O.P. who lived during this time??? St. Elizabeth of Hungary??? and the countless other female saints of this time???

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Heresies abounded during the Dark Ages within the Church itself. The East was pretty much becoming Arian while the West dealt with Barbarians at the gates. God bless the Emperor for sending Theodosius to the Imperial Throne in Constantinople! It was a dark time, though the Light of the Church and the Fathers were the most beneficial to our faith from that time.

Sts. Vasilius, Gregory and John Chrysostom- intercede on our behalf so that we my better know our Father in Heaven, and may His mercies, through your prayers, help enlighten us to do His will and mercy in these dark days ahead. As it was in your day so is it now, the deception and darkness, of a Church under attack for its very core and function of the Faith in Christ Jesus. Give us wisdom to be the Light by which Jesus Christ preached to us upon a hill in this day and the days ahead. Let us endeavor to fulfill trhe mission Jesus gave us before He ascended, that we be a witness to all mankind.

Lord have mercy. +

[picchick]

My main point for arguing Middle ages was not what the Church did, the status of women in that day in age, or that it is not interesting, too brutal etc. I am arguing that it is not the best age of all time.

From what I remember in history women AND men were uneducated. Just look at the common people. I only brought women up specifically because KofC did. That is all.

I do not think that the Church was excessively brutal or anything of that nature. I don't like the fact that they used torture but I also don't like the fact that torture is used today.

I admit, I am not an expert on Middle Age therefore I guess I have to bow out of my own topic and call it a day. Thanks for participating everyone.

Edited June 15, 2009 by picchick

[Socrates]

[quote name='picchick' post='1891762' date='Jun 15 2009, 05:52 PM']My main point for arguing Middle ages was not what the Church did, the status of women in that day in age, or that it is not interesting, too brutal etc. I am arguing that it is not the best age of all time.

From what I remember in history women AND men were uneducated. Just look at the common people. I only brought women up specifically because KofC did. That is all.

I do not think that the Church was excessively brutal or anything of that nature. I don't like the fact that they used torture but I also don't like the fact that torture is used today.

I admit, I am not an expert on Middle Age therefore I guess I have to bow out of my own topic and call it a day. Thanks for participating everyone.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity, what historical period [i]would[/i] you consider "the best age of all time"?

Every age has its problems and evils, of course.

And most people are ignorant in [i]any[/i] age, including our own.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Socrates

[picchick]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1892119' date='Jun 15 2009, 10:50 PM']Just out of curiosity, what historical period [i]would[/i] you consider "the best age of all time"?

Every age has its problems and evils, of course.

And most people are ignorant in [i]any[/i] age, including our own.[/quote]

I think that every age has its ups and downs. Each age has its evils and its greats. So I really don't there is really a "great" age. And to say that one is better than the other would be more out of opinion rather than fact. That is how I see it.

[CatherineM]

I agree that all times have their pros and cons. Having to pick though, I'd pick right now just because I speak the language and understand the culture (as much as I care to). My life today is certainly easier physically than my ancestors had it, even if it may be mentally harder.